The Great White Hope Revisited

GWH 2Following the publication of my recent article, “The Great White Hope?” a number of commentators have expressed the view that while it would obviously be wonderful to have at our disposal the six prerequisites that I listed, we simply do not have the “luxury” of the time that it would take to acquire them.

This is a misconception and I will explain why.

The people who raise such an objection are usually from among those nationalists who have since the decline of the BNP, either joined one of the existing nationalist micro-parties or who are currently actively engaged in the launching of such a party.

These people make the mistake of assuming that the BNP was the ‘dream vehicle’ for the advancement of nationalism and that it was only mismanagement or alleged corruption on the part of Nick Griffin that caused the BNP’s fortunes to wane.

These people believe that if a ‘BNP Mk II’ can be created, without the involvement of Nick Griffin, that such a political party will succeed where the BNP has failed. However, they couldn’t be more wrong.

Nick Griffin was instrumental in causing the decline of the BNP and he did play a central role in this, but he was not ultimately the cause of the failure of the BNP. This lies in the political party structure, which is totally unsuited for a movement such as ours at our present stage of development and which was the primary cause of the failure of all of the preceding thirty-odd nationalist political parties that have attempted to advance our cause since the 1890s.

When a political party exists within a cultural/political/social milieu that is favourable or at least neutral towards it, then such a party can if it’s members work hard, grow to play a progressively more prominent role in national politics. However, truly nationalist political parties do not at present enjoy such a favourable or even neutral environment within which to grow, far from it!

As I stated in “The Great White Hope?“:

“Nationalist politics is currently blighted by the fact that at every level and in every sphere of life in Britain and throughout the Western World today, the social, cultural and political environment is poisoned against the values underpinning nationalism.”

“… a totalitarian regime exists which has effectively marginalized anyone harbouring notions of nationalism or White racial solidarity, and which has effectively outlawed any public expression of the sentiments we hold dear.”

“Furthermore, … almost the entire mass media throughout Britain and the Western World is owned or controlled by organised Jewry who have a vested interest in suppressing the nationalisms of we European peoples and in suppressing all manifestations of White racial solidarity, …”

Within such an environment, anyone publicly aligning themself with racial nationalism (or anything that the establishment and/or media suspect is really racial nationalism in disguise) automatically becomes a social pariah.

The problem for nationalist organisations that take the form of a political party is that electioneering, the primary activity of a political party, requires the party to seek the ‘oxygen’ of publicity, and to make public the true identities of its officers, organisers, election candidates, election agents and many of its key activists, and this has meant that the BNP has been starved of the kind of people that could in other circumstances have accelerated its development.

For any able person from the professions, a managerial position or working in the public sector – the kind of person who would normally gravitate to leadership and administrative positions in any of the establishment parties, public association with the BNP has with few notable exceptions, been tantamount to career suicide.

Most importantly, this situation has not only deterred many fine people from assuming prominent roles within the BNP, it deterred anyone of truly exceptional leadership ability from pushing themselves forward to challenge John Tyndall for the leadership of the BNP at the critical time, during the late 1990s, when his powers were beginning to wane.

It was left to Nick Griffin, a clever and able man with considerable ability as a leader to challenge John Tyndall in 1999, and although the BNP initially benefited from Griffin’s relatively youthful dynamism, Griffin has his limitations and in 2009 the BNP had achieved a size such that Griffin was at the limit of his organisational competence. While Griffin is in many respects a good leader, in my opinion he did not have the truly exceptional ability that was required for the BNP to grow further, beyond 2009.

During the period 2005-2009 Griffin often spoke of the probability that he would have to stand down at some future date in favour of a new leader, often referring to what he called his ‘political baggage’ as the rational for this, but in my opinion it was because he knew in his heart that he was at his organisational limit.

The hostile political environment in which we nationalists find ourselves, has meant that historically, the BNP never  developed a sufficiently strong cadre of subordinate leaders of the quality that the party leader would have needed in order to perpetuate the party’s expansion. Consequently, at his organisational limit in 2009, Griffin had too few people that were competent enough for him to delegate responsibility to and he lacked the ability to start, let alone keep any more ‘plates spinning’ himself.

As we have seen, during the Euro elections of 2009, Nick Griffin’s problems were compounded when he and Andrew Brons were elected as MEPs and Griffin’s ability to cope began to visibly crumble; Griffin fluffed his performance on Question Time; he became distracted by the European Parliament; and he chose unwisely when it came to delegating domestic party matters to his largely second rate, incompetent and in some cases notably avaricious subordinates.

I repeat, Nick Griffin was instrumental in causing the decline of the BNP and he did play a central role in this, but he was not the root cause of that decline, he was merely a ‘symptom’ of a deeper malaise and if Griffin had never existed, someone else just like him would have come along, would have faced the same problems and pressures that he faced and would have done much the same as him. One only has to look at the continual saga of internal wranglings, controversies and bungling that have accompanied nationalism since the days of A K Chesterton and John O’Brien and beyond, to see that the malaise that I describe has dogged nationalist political parties for almost a century.

In its early stages, our movement must be structured in such a way that it does not make it’s key people targets for attack by the establishment, the left and organised immigrant groups and so that it does not require people of the highest quality in terms of leadership and administrative ability to commit career suicide upon joining and playing leading roles within it. This means that our movement must not be structured as a political party and should initially at least, and for possibly a matter of years, eschew electoral politics, until we are strong enough and have sufficient assets and influence to protect our key people. Only by proceeding through stealth during the early stages, can we hope to succeed in the long term and avoid the otherwise inevitable cycle of growth, decay and collapse, which as we can see has got us absolutely nowhere over the last one-hundred years.

The people who claim that we do not have the luxury of the time necessary to satisfy my six prerequisites fail to realise that while they may with a political party be able to begin electoral campaigning immediately, they will not suddenly experience a dramatic upturn in the fortunes of British nationalism. If this were so, then we would have witnessed such an upturn with the British Freedom Party, or the English People’s Party, or any one or more of the other nationalist micro-parties that already exist.

Even when we look at an establishment approved quasi-nationalist party like UKIP, we can see that even with the widespread toleration and sporadic support of certain sections of the media and with several sizeable donations from maverick millionaires, UKIP have taken twenty years to reach a point where they have just twelve MEPs and a mere thirty-nine local councillors. They are still a long way from political power and currently have little influence over government policy.

We must ask ourselves, is there any reason to assume that a sanitised BNP clone, not unlike UKIP, will achieve more in the  next twenty years than UKIP have achieved so far, especially when the new party will have to compete against the original UKIP, the original BNP and all of the other BNP clones that already exist?

Furthermore, we must ask ourselves, will the voting public be more likely to vote for a UKIP-come-BNP clone than for the original UKIP or the original BNP?

No, and therefore with the best will in the world, any new nationalist political party will almost certainly take several decades at the very least before making any significant political impact, if it manages to last that long.

The ‘new political party’ route to power will therefore take much longer to succeed than the plans that we at Western Spring advocate and will be too slow to save the British people before mass immigration and current demographic trends will have made us a minority in our own land. I’m sure I don’t need to point out that once people of our race and ethnicity become a minority in Britain, it will be impossible for us to gain a majority in support of racial nationalist policies through the democratic process.

However, if nationalists were to throw their support behind the plans we advocate at Western Spring there is a genuine and realistic prospect of us being able to satisfy the six prerequisites that I have outlined and to seriously challenge for political power within just ten years. Furthermore during that ten-year period, we will be able to lay the foundations of an ethnic/national homeland within the British Isles that will secure the existence of our people in perpetuity, even if we do temporarily become a minority within the British Isles as a whole.

Therefore, far from not having the ‘luxury’ of the time required to fulfil our plans, the converse is true. The British people cannot afford the luxury of the fatuous waste of the time, money and physical effort involved in launching yet another nationalist micro-party that will be doomed to suffer the same fate as all of the others that have gone before it.

Finally, the six prerequisites that I have listed are not ‘nice-to-haves’, that we can do without. The term ‘prerequisite’ means that these things are essential‘ for success, and that success cannot be achieved without them. Therefore, whichever route we choose to pursue, it must involve the acquisition of those pre-requisites, otherwise we will fail.

Therefore it is not a matter of whether we have the ‘luxury’ of the time required, because if we are to win we must make the time, and we must make the task of acquiring these prerequisites our highest priority.

We must build a movement that fulfils the six prerequisites and then, and only then, as the final phase of our quest for power, should we launch a political party.

By Max Musson © 2013

If you wish to become involved in building the Movement of National Salvation, then please email me:

# # # #

For further reading, please read:

The Great White Hope?

The Great White Hope – Encore!

# # # #

31 thoughts on “The Great White Hope Revisited

  1. I think you’re probably right that the BNP would fail anyway because the system stitched up already.
    It’s a Henry Ford type politics where you can have any colour as long as it is black.
    The tail wags the dog, so conventional politics is a safety valve at best with manufactured scandals to make it look real, to give the illusion of choice where there is none.

    If you can’t fight a conventional war because you are small & not a state backed entity, you resort to guerrilla tactics, obviously you will be proscribed as terrorists.
    But a form of asymmetric politics is the only way now.

  2. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    I can’t fault the strategy Max, my only quibble is that you’ve down played the need for moral leadership. Systems, as essential as they are, won’t on their own win the hearts and minds of our folk. We also need courageous men and women who through their actions, integrity and self sacrifice are able to inspire the rest of us faint hearts.

    When taking part in an Art discussion group some years back we touched upon the Jesuits and how the Art of their time was used for Christian propaganda, of which my tutor seemingly approved. When I pointed out that the Jesuits lacked integrity she retorted that integrity couldn’t be trusted because Enoch Powell had integrity,.. seriously!

    Unfortunately we have to go back historically to before the Second World War to find Powell’s equivalent in the movements of national salvation of their time. I don’t think there’s any question that the almost successful challenge mounted against the capitalist/Marxist system was due to the extraordinary courage and abilities of the individuals concerned.

    1. Steve, the problem is that the whole of our judicial system is geared towards defending the rights of ‘minorities’. The system is rotten to the core, solicitors (a lot of them fast-tracked minorities themselves through Marxist ‘reverse discrimination’) are making hundreds of thousands of pounds defending the rights of ‘minorities’. They are totally uninterested in the plight of the man and his children highlighted in the link because it goes against the Zionist agenda. The fact that he is a WHITE South African makes him ‘untouchable’ as far as cultural Marxists are concerned.

      1. Yes I realise that, which is why I talk about needing to have good lawyers on our side & that fighting such cases would be good publicity for us, make white people feel cared for rather than the constant drip, drip of blame & guilt tripping.

        We do have a parallel justice system where rights for whites are different to how non whites are treated.

        The other point is a white South African illustrates the failure of the rainbow nation, the fraud of saint Mandela.

  3. I remember for NG’s Barking campaign, there were leaflets put out attempting to attract the Afro-Carribean vote (from there I knew something was wrong). This sums up why the BNP has failed. As I already explained: ethno-nationalism is doomed to fail in a country that has a high mixed ethnic population and the BNP have now been forced to play the Christian card to try to attract votes from Carribeans and the whole “Muslims also target Sikh girls” card to the Sikhs. In fact there’s a video on youtube, where Nick is out canvassing and he sees three Sikhs walking towards him and he asks will they vote BNP. They just walked off saying “no”.

    1. Yes NG has a long history of tailoring his message to gain support for his progress but I think his luck has run out on that now.
      There were the links to Nation of Islam, Libya & Colonel Gaddafi, none of which really worked & he changed tack.
      I supported him despite reservations but once I saw he was a fraud for myself & not up to the job, I walked away & realised party politics are probably a dead end now.
      There is no true democracy, it’s all a fraud.

  4. It all sounds promising but would need REAL 24/7 dedication to have a chance.
    Why put all your eggs in one basket? Two or more strands of national salvation can be developed simultaneously. The successful IRA / Sinn Fein combination could offer more insurance that we can’t be put out of business too easily. A political wing and an invisible section.
    You also have to get through to the bovine British Electorate who are generally apathetic towards politics. That might be the hardest part.

    1. We do not intend to put all of our ‘eggs’ in one basket and there are indeed several strands of national salvation developing simultaneously. We do not however intend to model ourselves on the IRA/Sinn Fein model however.

      As for the British electorate, they are nowhere near as ‘bovine’ as some would have us believe. The problem so far is that hitherto they have not seen a nationalist organisation that can demonstrate the capacity to win and they are not daft enough to place their faith in organisations that are poorly prepared and so obviously heading for failure.

      We intend to change all that!

      1. Another point is that time is not on our side, I very much doubt if we have
        anywhere near 30 years to build it all up, with the demographic tsunami
        approaching fast. When I speak to articulate Moslems, without giving my
        position away, they frequently claim that Britain will be an Islamic state in 25
        years, AT THE OUTSIDE. And they all want Sharia. Just look at a serious
        basket-case state like Pakistan; when they had a ‘civil’ war against East Pakistan in 1971, their own population was about 45 million, now it is around the 200 million mark. Something else, it is very important to define exactly
        who is British, otherwise we will be constantly caught out when asked if
        someone’s cousin who is a quarter Chinese can join BDP or no.

        1. We will have more time than people think, although as you quite rightly surmise, it will be a desperately closely run thing. The Muslims claims are tainted by optimism and ours too often by pessimism and so the situation often looks hopeless. This is what the media want, they want us to submit to the fate that has been ordained for us by the global plutocracy.

          As we build the Movement of National Salvation (MoNS) and begin to implement our plans, these will begin to slow at first and then reverse the decline in our numbers, and this phenomenon will buy us more time.

          As for who is or is not ‘British’, such issues can be complex and difficult to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction in instances where someone has slight traces of non-European ancestry. Suffice to say that for the time being we must make the future survival of our race our primary concern and not allow ourselves to become too distracted by peripheral issues. We must first see which side of the ‘barricade’ a questionable individual chooses to stand, and then consider each case on its individual merits.

          1. The moslems are not a cohesive block which comes apparent when there are large numbers of them & they seperate into sects, if they’re not killing us, they often kill each other.
            Pakistan being a good example & other countries have issues because one sect rules & the others have no power.

        2. I think we have to agree that a British or European person is white but not all whites will want any part of this & will actively seek to destroy this, some actually believe that getting rid of whites will be beneficial to the world.
          I think islam is dangerous to any country & has no place at all in Europe, it should be strictly controlled, also no zionism in public office either or in any position of influence.

          Who cares about a quarter Chinese joining the BDP, they’re compromised from the start & I would have nothing to do with them.
          Someone who identifies themselves as Chinese or moslem is not British or European & that could applied to a pro Israel Jew too.

          1. Defining how white a person has to be before he or she is acceptable as white to racial nationalists can be tricky. DNA analysis shows that old stock (i.e. mainly British) Americans who make up most of the population of the southern states are about 3% black African by ancestry – the product of one great, great, great grandparent. Afrikaners in South Africa are 6/7% African and Asian, in part the result of the absurd practise under apartheid of defining people born to two mixed race parents as “white” if they could just about pass as white. Yet these two populations have always historically been the staunchest of white racialists.

            Would we reject such people as unsuitable to join us? Surely not, absolute racial purity is ideal, but not always practical. If a person looks white, thinks white and has no recent non-white ancestry that should be good enough. As for your quarter Chinese person, he should certainly not be allowed to join us, but what about someone like Ian Duncan Smith who is one-eight Japanese even though you’d never know it?

            1. “but what about someone like Ian Duncan Smith who is one-eight Japanese even though you’d never know it?”

              Definitely out along with all other mainstream politicians, not for the Japanese bit but for the treachery!

  5. Another point: many people are saying something along the lines of “nationalism is on the increase in Europe, just look at the French National Front, or Swedish Democrats”. However neither of these parties are any longer ethno-nationalist, nor do they have an ethnic or racial dimension to their ideology. The ethno-nationalists of the SD’s were kicked out and formed their own party called National Democrats (they hold no power and have hardly any support). There is no longer an ethnic dimension to the French NF, it has shifted to cultural nationalism. So these “nationalist” or rather pseudo-nationalist parties are borderline civic. In the UK, UKIP which can be considered cultural/civic nationalist is on the increase. So we may ask the important question: why has ethnic or rather racial nationalism failed? The answer is because the way race has come to be rejected en masse by society, and by politically correct scientists who popularise race denialism e.g. “race is just a social construct”. The last of the race realist scientists in the West are now dying – Rushton, Jensen Sarich all died late last year (RIP). Part of my goal, is to raise awareness in the science which confirms the reality of race, hence you can check out the following page I developed since last September:

    1. Actually racial or ethnic nationalism hasn’t failed, it just isn’t encouraged in white people.
      You see plenty of it in non whites, with the moslems it’s more a global thing wanting world dominating caliphate.
      Jews especially zionists also ruthlessly push their interests.
      Whites are subject to a lot of propaganda & guilt tripping for considering their race important.

  6. One thing I say is that whites are responsible for the modern world or at least 90% of it.
    This is a good or bad thing depending on your point of view.
    Within this the British probably are the biggest representatives due to the industrial revolution.
    So does this make us superior to other races?
    You decide.

    Does anyone believe if that Africans had inhabited the area where the industrial revolution occurred, it would still have happened?
    Maybe some Asians could have done something.
    To me Africans appear to be an evolutionary dead end, they seem to be basically the same as they were 100’s if not 1,000’s of years ago.
    You can put them in a white western country & some will do well but would they be as successful in their own countries, chances are no.
    Moslem countries also seem to hinder individual progress.

  7. Civic nationalists like UKIP form the bulk of the Conservative Rearguard of our movement. They cannot win but they are buying time for the more radical wing of the movement to organise a counter-offensive.

    My view of the BDP is probably similar to western spring, it simply does not have at present the resources to mount a counter-offensive and will only end up becoming part of the Conservative Rearguard, albeit more costly to the individuals involved and far less effective than UKIP.

    1. Probably true but maybe some of those civic nationalists will become full blown ones, the more they know?
      I used to be quite liberal, look at me now!

  8. Lets hope they do, by the way I was once a member in UKIP many years ago when I was still a respectable conservative.

      1. I was 18 at the time I joined, I got involved and was drawn to the libertarian faction and went down that particular ideological rabbit hole whilst I was at University. I let my membership lapse as I had increasingly come to the conclusion that the EU was just a symptom of a deeper problem and UKIP at that time was more or less a single issue party and given the Kilroy-Silk fiasco very unprofessional.

        As for it being a ‘safety valve party’, this often levelled at any rightist party by their rightist opponents. Its much like the argument that the BNP was a ‘safety valve’ because it either sold out to the ‘zionists’ or that it didn’t go far enough from disassociating itself from its ‘national socialist’ roots.

        UKIP is not a nationalist party its an unstable mixture of libertarianism, populism and Thatcherism. That doesn’t mean that it is of no value to us, as I said its very existence even if it does not win any seats means that the other mainstream parties have to proceed with their anti-White agenda more cautiously.

        The nature of any ‘conservative’ opposition is that they are not revolutionary and they are simply fighting to conserve yesterday’s liberalism. They cannot win, but they have value in the limited sense that they prevent the liberals from achieving complete victory.

        I beleive that any rightist political party for the time being can at best only slow down the anti-White plans. There are always people who are political animals and are addicted to the sort of retail politics where they constantly try and ingratiate themselves with the voters where they are at now. I’m not one of them although I don’t begrudge people who are. My only opinion on the matter is that these people be honest about what they can achieve and they be ruthlessly pragmatic about slaughtering their sacred cows to get into a position where they can do some good.

        If I were such an animal I would choose the cynical UKIP over the radical BDP, it won’t create a revolution but it is far more likely to throw a spanner into the anti-White works.

        Since I’m a radical and want to see revolutionary change I could never stomach the sort of compromises that are inevitable in any political party that is serious about power.

        Hope this makes sense.

        1. Thanks for that.
          I think a lot of people consider safety valve parties to be some sort of controlled opposition that will lead nowhere.
          Some of the people within those parties may believe that they are genuine opposition to the status quo.

          Maybe the idea is to lead UKIP voters up a garden path like the BNP did & then implode so as to disillusion & scatter the opposition to the mainstream agenda?
          A form of diversion, subversion, dilution & pollution to stop any opposition to what is going on or at least obscure the overall picture.

          1. I would agree to a certain extent that both the BNP and UKIP are safety valves in relation to the system. Whether they are conciously controlled safety valves or if its just a question of the actual people running them being too naive and optimistic of their actual chances I don’t know.

  9. I think it’s a combination of things, maybe they know or maybe they think they’re doing something real?
    But far behind the scenes lies the real power & control.
    They learnt from Hitler & Stalin not to have image or iconography, so as to exist in plain sight & not be seen.

Comments are closed.